Introduction to Literature 131

Edit this page. Paste your answers and then save. Feel fee to respond at will in the Discussion Tab. Place a line after your entry to keep the posts separated. Make sure to add you name. Just like the "Husband" assignment.

Writing Assignment:

How did the government of this society gain control over the people? Explain using evidence from the story.
Do you think this scenario is plausible?

Robin Hilton
In the book Fahrenheit 451, the government used censorship to gain control over the people. In the story, they censored mostly all books and had firemen come and burn down peoples’ houses and the books in them if someone called and told them that that person owned banned books. They also gained control over people by trying to offer them things that made them not have to think for themselves and occupy their time. They had a lot of sports and television and things like to occupy the masses. I really don’t think this scenario is plausible to the extent that it was in the book. I do think that our government tries to control us as much as any government would, but I don’t think they will ever ban all books or anything like that.

Lillya Glenn
In the book Fahrenheit 451 the government was able to gain control over the people by limiting their amount of social stimulation. For instance, the fact that the government disallowed front porches because they did not want to give people a chance to relax and find time to actually have conversations and even debates. Stimulation was given by panels placed on the wall allowing individuals to interact with that voice only; everything that would make for discussion came through the walls and was only the messages that the government wanted to be heard. They instilled fear in the people by burning down the homes of the people that were caught with books and imprisoning them, even by loosing a mechanical dog that would hunt its victim down and inject them with poison. They were also able to gain control by giving the people a sense of well being that all was well in the world not matter what was going on. They wanted neighbors to tell on one another and this was one
way of assuring that this imprisonment of the mind would linger. By causing people to feel guilty if they went against the grain and did something that was not allowed or viewed as unlawful. It was strange to read that young people found it entertaining to run someone over with their cars and no one viewed this as morally or criminally wrong. Clarisse was viewed as a trouble maker because she actually had ideas of life and wanted to enjoy living by taking in the beauty of the world and by her interest in what others were thinking. She wanted some interaction with real people. Firemen were the equivalent of the government, or the military, because it was their job to police society. Firemen were looked up to for burning down houses when the exact opposite thing should have been their job; they even possessed the same features. Television was referred to as the family which kept everyone on the same page and kept them believing and feeling the same things. Disallowing
people to read books was only the tip of the iceberg. By taking away a societies ability to broaden their knowledge and to think for themselves; thus taking away the power of free choice, they were able to gain control over the people. By eliminating distinctions in classes of people this made for one lifeless society, and I think I have heard ideology like this in the news lately, maybe in the democratic debates. This is just something to think about.

I not only think that this scenario is plausible but I feel that we are not that far from this type of censorship and control presently. In the next year every single person that owns a television will have to buy a converter box if they don’t already own a digital television set, my own personal opinion of this is that their will be a signal sent through to every home that will give the government information about people in that particular home. I know some will argue that it has everything to do with the fact that technology is advancing at an accelerated rate, but I believe that it is something more sinister. Soon grocery will have labels with encoding marks that can be read by satellites and hand held scanners, so that the food in your cabinets will be known instantly, and utility services already have hand held scanners that will read the meter of every home on a particular street without even getting out of the car. On Star has developed equipment that can
turn your car off and locate you at a minutes notice. Cattle have to be given a number and scanned so that the government will be able to track them. People’s pets have chips implanted to keep track of them and soon people will have to do the same thing, all in the name of “safety” creating a sense of well being. Sounds like we are getting ready for something, something is happening within our government.

Jaime Rodriguez

The government gained control basically by promoting the “status quo” type of life. Being complacent with the easiest ways of getting things done; or for that matter, not getting anything done which for this society was pretty much the same. People seem so busy; however, they are not producing or creating, they are just being. The citizens of this society are so overwhelmed with technology that they are left with no time for anything else, as Clarisse states “No one has time any more for any one else.” (Bradbury 30). I think this was venue for the government to control lives; limiting social interaction and replacing it with fake interactive reality. By promoting technology the government gained even more control over the citizens, tridimensional television –controlled by them; robots that did everything for a person and even a school system designed to promote equality by controlling not only actions, but minds. Clarisse gives us a great description of why she was unable to fit with the social norms of her school “But I don’t think is social to get a bunch of people together and then not let them talk, do you?” (Bradbury 29). Repression, but at the same time unrealistic taste of happiness as she continues to explain, “…by the end of the day we can’t do anything but go to bed or head for a Fun Park to bully people around, break windowpanes in the Window Smasher place or wreck cars in the Car Wrecker place with big steel ball.” (Bradbury 30).
Even though the scenario might be considered extremist; I find that it could be possible. Just judging by recent events in our present society; for example, the polygamist compound recently uncovered. When one powerful minded individual or group of individuals can find a way to penetrate into society’s mind, the consequences could be devastating.

Amelia Hill
The government in the book Fahrenheit 451 gain control over the people buy burning of the books. By taking books away from the people they gain control over the people. I do not think the government want the people to learn anymore. The government wanted complete control. I feel that is why they had so many other activities for the people to do. I do feel like the fireman did not stand up to the government, as it should have. Most people see fireman, as heroes not brainwashed patriot. The government knew to keep control of the people they had to get the upper hand on the people. Now I do feel like something like this could happen. In World War II books were openly burn in the public square. People during that day and time did not take a second though to burning books because they feel that they should make up there own rules. Living by the books that they had burned was keeping them down. In today’s world burning of books I do not feel could happen. The government knew that the people want to read and taking it away they keep the sure control over the people. I read something every day and just to think if I did not have my Bible to read would put me beside myself. I find such comfare in reading sometime. I like to read before I got to bed. I read two books every summer to keep my mind open in my time off from school. I just gald we live in a world our government does not take away our ability to expand our minds thought reading.
_
Terry Sheehan

The government gained control over its society in the book, “Fahrenheit 451” by using brainwashing and fear tactics. The people had their brains turn to mush because the government wanted them to be mindless puppets that they could control. They were able to stop the wonderful outpouring of knowledge reading books can provide by the threat of fire and certain death for all who did not obey. Knowledge is power and by doing this only the government was powerful and could keep their power in check. When Guy Montag met Clarisse McClellan she asked him questions that started him thinking. Until meeting her he took his job and way of life for granted just going through the boring motions of what he was programmed to do, not really living life. His wife had tried to commit suicide as well as many others because their lives were void of happiness and any quality of life. The society was told to watch television that was also controlled by the government which is how the brainwashing was accomplished. The sad thing is this scenario is very plausible even in today’s society we can already see the way too much technology can have a downside. Our society spends entirely too much time absorbed with the internet and blogs which can consume most of the day into the night without living life and experiencing enough time in the great outdoors and communicating face to face with someone engaging in the art of conversation. Many people out there have become soulless, cold and somewhat robotic in a way that shows a loss of humanity. There is so much importance placed on sensationalism so they can get a kick out of something in their boring lives they will try anything without regard to how it will affect anyone but themselves and their own pleasure or glory. It’s very scary to think we are becoming a mindless society to some degree when you hear for example about those eight kids that beat a girl up and recorded it for the internet to, “teach her a lesson.” They are just as mindless and without remorse as the fireman in this futuristic novel. Not too far into the future from what I can see. Clearly there needs to be more education and more reading and teaching in the areas of ethics, humanity and the value and respect for life or we will become a mindless society also without the governments help.

Kristen Evans
The government had the last say in what the people were able to do or not to do. The books and media were taken in as there way of controling the people's education. The people were only allowed to read certian books and others were prohibited. The people were afraid to do any different. They wouldn't disobey the law at all. This then made them scared of books and this stopped the furthering of education. It was almost like the government wanted to be the only one's who had control. They government was also the only ones who had access to these types of books. This made the peoples outlook overall on life change. The people were making decision that were not sane. Is it that people were not making sane decisions or they were not able to make good decisions based on the information provided? Just because the authority over these people had scared them, their actions were showing that they had some what been brain washed. Their are also soceities living today that are very similar to this society in this book. Like what?

I do believe that this sceneario is plausible. We see things like this everyday on the news and also read about it. Not only does the government have control. But certain relgions also scare and brainwash their followers. Just like 9-11 the terroist would of never done what they did, but they thought there actions would take them to their "leader or God". Our government also does this with the rules and regulations we have. But if there were no laws, the world would be in chaos. I also believe that you can take rules and regulations to a certain point. The soceity in the story reminds me of the movie "Footloose". These people weren't allowed to read anything but the "Bible", as well as, other christian books. The teenager weren't allowed to have any type of fun, including dancing. Until someone came into the town and proved that dancing wasn't a sin. Sometimes we have to see other peoples views to know that our ordinary ways, might not just be oridinary. interesting comparison.

Michelle Osborne
The government gained control over the people by prohibiting the ownership and reading of books. If a book was detected in a home, it was immediately destroyed by the firemen by burning the book. The people in society were brainwashed to believe that books were not good for them. People were very depressed. For example, Millie overdosed one night on some sleeping pills and Montag calmly called the suicide orderlies. Suicide attempts were common in the town because of depression. People were frightened of the sight of books. Montag tried to talk to Millie about the books he had confiscated, but she got frightened at the sight of these books. She eventually turned him in to the firemen. I just think the lack of feeling that the suicide attempt showed was almost more than I could fathom.
I do believe this scenario is plausible because the government already controls certain aspects of our lives. For instance, everyone who works or collects a certain amount of money per year is required to file taxes. There are consequences for not doing so. Your wages can even be garnished in order for the government to collect their money. Even though there would be pockets of resistance, this could actually happen. Yeah, I am pretty sure we could all refuse to pay taxes and get the laws changed, but who is going to organize a country, hmmmm?

Cindy Lowe
The government of this society brainwashed the population into thinking that people who read books were superior to others. In order to keep everyone on the same level of intelligence, books needed to be declared illegal and annihilated. According to Beatty the schools began to turn out more athletes than intellectuals, hence books stopped selling. He asked Montag if he remembered the smart students in school and how they intimidated the others by always answering the questions. “We must all be alike. Not everyone born free and equal, as the Constitution says, but everyone made equal. Each man the image of every other; then all are happy”, stated Beatty. He felt it was necessary to breach man’s mind and not give him any options that would cause minorities to become upset and stirred.
We, as Americans today, are swayed and dictated by our government on a continual basis. In the future, I can envision books becoming obsolete due to the rapid growth of computer technology. All one needs today is a computer and with a connection to the world wide web all information is at their fingertips. The need for books has declined already. I think it would be unlikely for our nation to declare books illegal and begin to burn them but nothing is impossible.

Michele D
I am just curious if everyone thinks the people were brainwashed or if it is possible that people just stopped caring because their lives were caught up in new technology and fancy gadgets? Everybody get your phones out and text me ;)

Heather Hart
The government gained control of society by instilling fear into its people taking away their freedom to continue learning. Those in the society that wanted to discover new worlds and gain knowledge through books were murdered, burned in their homes, by the people that were supposed to offer help. “The firemen.” The government wanted the people in the society to be somewhat clueless as to what was going on around them and yet most of the people weren’t bothered by the fact that their neighbors and their homes were being invaded and burnt to the ground. All because they sought out more than what their boring lives were offering them.
I do believe that this scenario is plausible. People today are to involved in activities and have their home, pockets and bags full of gadgets. They stay so busy that they don’t have time to sit and read a good book. Unfortunately I too fall into this category. I work an 8:00am to 5:00pm shift and immediately after work go to school and usually don’t get home until 9:30pm. I would love to have time to sit and read but by the time I get home in the evenings all that I want to do is eat dinner and go to bed. I think that is how it began, perhaps, people too busy working to live - not enough time for reading or culture or art ... In all honesty I hope our society never ends up like “Fahrenheit 451” because I want to raise my children in a reading world. I want them to have all the experiences that reading can give them and their imaginations.

Loran Bowers
How did the government of this society gain control over the people? Explain using evidence from the story. The government in this society gained control over the people by not allowing the growth of knowledge. All books, media, and any other sources that increase people’s knowledge were banned and if anyone was caught with a book in their house the fireman would come and burn their house to ashes. If no one is smarter than another then everyone would be the same and no one will pay a threat to the government. Through the government banning books, people were easily manipulated by fear, leading them to do whatever the government said. People has no minds of there own. Beatty could remember when books were allowed and how they slowly disappeared. Beatty states that the government didn’t make a formal declaration of censorship but they advanced technology instead making books useless.
Do you think this scenario is plausible? I do think that this scenario is plausible. Bradbury sets the book in the 24th century where humans have lost the ability to do the simplest tasks. They past the time watching television, take pills to help them fall asleep, and forget the state of their existence. Some of this is show in our society today. Technology has advanced so much that you can watch videos on your cell phone along with searching the internet. Television nowadays shows a variety of different shows for all ages, there is something for everyone. It is also common to take a sleeping pill to help them get to sleep; it isn’t thought to be out of the ordinary for them to do so.

Stacey Pilkington
The Government in “Fahrenheit 451” used censorship, propaganda, technology, ignorance, and its own society to gain control of its citizens. Banning any books in my eyes is censorship. Faber alludes to censorship when he explains to Guy that many social circles, like cat lovers could be offended so the Government banned books. I found it interesting that Faber’s explanation did not include minorities or religious groups. Faber's explanation may not have but what about the Chief's explanation to Montag? Today, we censor a lot of things for the protection of minorities and religious beliefs. Faber helps Bradbury get his point across on censorship. What is Bradbury's point on censhorship?
Propaganda was used to induce or inform the citizens how to feel and think. TV became family. Mrs. Phelps and Mrs. Bowels help get this point across. They do not question the Government’s authority but welcome it. They choose ignorance because ignorance is bliss. We see that it is too difficult for them to face reality and is easier to conform to a world that is already planned out for them. When Guy reads to them, it ignites feeling that has been suppressed by stimulating propaganda and Government control. Both women represent the attitude and norms of this society.
The advancement in technology assisted the Government in controlling the people. The hound represents technology in this novel. The Government replaced a living dog with a mechanical sniper. The hound seemed to possess life like qualities but was still a machine. We are lead to believe that there is no escaping this creature because of its technology. When the hound is released, I assumed that Guy would be caught or killed.
I do think this scenario is plausible. I do not think the severity of the control of the government is plausible. I do not think that the Government could ban an entire form of speech. Both Faber and The Chief talk about how the the public made it easy to restrict freedoms by turning away from education and such. Don't you think that could happen in a future time when people care less about knowledge and more about gadgets and things that sparkle? The book is symbolism and representation of society. The things in the book are already happening. Just take a look at our society. Forget what you’ve been told what the Government can do or can’t do. We do not know how the Government gained this control in the book so you really can’t say that it isn’t plausible. A lot of the things our Government does are always in the name of “equality and protection of its citizens”
Let’s say in Guy’s society that a terrorist group waged a war on their citizens and this terrorist group communicated through books or they worshipped books. Now let’s say that the Government told the citizens that they must ban all books to keep them safe. Would we fight it or accept it?
I think our Government is very controlling and if you are not outraged by some of the control that the Government exercises over us everyday, then you are not paying attention. Anyone can gain control over a group of people but can only succeed with an army of followers. Nice point. I’ll just say this, who in their right minds would have ever thought that Hitler could have almost wiped out an entire race of people because he didn’t like them. He used propaganda, emotion, technology, Government and his followers helped him.

Wendi Summerlin
In the book "Fahrenheit 451" the government of this society gained control of the people through intellectual censorship. The government did this by limiting what the people could read. Certain books are approved and allowed by the government. Many of the approved books are condensed into much smaller versions than the original. Owning all other books is against the law. If anyone is caught with an unapproved book the "firemen" will come and burn down the house of the suspected "criminal". A "mechanical hound" is also used by the government as a scare tactic to keep the people abiding by the law. Since these people only had certain books available to read it kept them from being challenged to think on their own. These people had no independent thoughts for themselves and they were happy with their lives basically because they didn't know any better. People had no reason to question authority or go against the laws. These people were happy not to think. Their lack of knowledge had made them lazy and dependent upon all the technological advances around them. The women in the story interacted with a huge wall version of a TV. The characters were considered "family" because they seemed to interact with members in the house, but it was only through advanced technology this was possible. People only wanted to be happy in this society. This was obvious when Montag read an unapproved poem to his wife and two of her friends. The poem made one of the ladies cry and she became very upset at Montag for reading it to them. The story never told exactly how the government imposed intellectual censorship, but to me it seemed the people allowed it to happen long before the government enforced the laws because they chose not to see what was really happening around them.

While reading this novel, I found myself relating it to our world today. So, yes I do think this scenario is plausible. What I mean is, I don't see as many people reading like they use to. Advanced technology has provided so many new gadgets to occupy our time that reading is not as popular anymore as a free-time activity. I work in the school system and trying to get children to read is very difficult. Many of them are involved in extra curricular activities that take up much of their free-time. My sixth grade daughter loves to read whatever she can get her hands on. Often times she is telling me things she read involving history or some other subject that I didn't know. I fear she is the exception among children of today. I am as much at fault as the next person because reading is not something I like to do. When I first started this class I couldn't stand the thought of reading a novel. I had to force myself to read this book, but I quickly realized through this book how important reading is to intellectual development. Reading exposes you to different ideas and information that makes you think more deeply. If the people of today do not start putting down their iPods, nintendos, playstations, Wii, gameboys, etc. I could easily see us facing the same fate as the people in "Fahrenheit 451". As the old saying goes "If you don't use it, you lose it". Good. And think about when the novel was written? Not too bad a prediction on Bradbury's part, huh?

Judith Ayala
In this novel you kind of have to interpret the kind of government that they have, since it is not reveal by directly in the narration. It is really obvious that people do follow everything like it is ask, which leads me to think that there was some kind of dictatorship. With the mandate of burning books, it is clear that they didn’t want for their people to read, and reading is very fundamental to people’s education. Therefore if there is ignorance among the people and they are miss leaded by the government they are not going to fight for their rights.
I believe that this scenario is plausible, because we don’t quite picture it here in North America, but there is other countries that do live under dictatorship and just like the book they have no ways to fight back the government. For example?

Jeff Keys
The basic premise of Fahrenheit 451 is that by eliminating all knowledge and ways to gain it, people will be easy to mold the way one chooses. In this book, it is illegal to possess books (except presumably government approved ones), and anyone who does so must face the wrath of the firemen - men who sets things on fire. (What else could that mean?) Not only does it make people dumb and desperate for even the most banal of entertainment (I'm looking at you, reality TV shows), it restricts any possibility of knowing how things used to be, making an uprising unlikely. All the people have to go by is what the government tells them.
While the concept of a government restricting or attempting to restrict all information is certainly plausible (look at communism), it is hard for me to imagine it ever taking place on the scale present in Fahrenheit 451. For one thing, there will be people fighting it every step of the way. While there are and probably always will be a large segment of people who are content to simply believe what they are told and not learn to think for themselves, there will (hopefully) always be at least a few who would be able to see what is happening and fight against it. For this reason, I think this scenario is implausible, but definitely not impossible.

Sue Lampton
Fahrenheit 451 never tells you how the government has gained control over the people only that it has taken control. It is against the law to read or own books outside books that are approved by the government. Penalty for breaking this law of owning and reading books is having everything you owned burned by the fireman (they start fires instead of putting them out). Everyone is encouraged to be mindless without any useful thought going through their minds (reality TV and referring to everyone as family). In Fahrenheit 451 no one seems to have a sense of humanity (no concern or feeling for people who have died like Clarisse McClellan).
Yes this scenario is plausible because this society is run by the government by evidences of being controlled by the government. Fahrenheit 451 society is based on a communist government. People are discouraged to think for themselves and encouraged to mindless activities. People who rebel or go against the government are killed off if they don’t go into hiding. As in our world today this scenario would be harder to succeed because society today has a lot of fighters for what they believe in.

Julie Robinson
The government controlled the society by not allowing them to read books and by burning their houses down if they were caught with books in there house. The government did not allow books because they didn't want the individuals to know what was out there and what they were missing. It's almost as if the government was scared that the town would become smarter than them. By using firemen to start fires rather than put them out is definetly a way to scare society in to doing what they want, rather than letting them be individuals.
This government system is a dictatorship to me. Ran by the government and ONLY the government with no suggetions from the town itself. Do I think this is plausible, probably not. How can the government know every single person that has a book in there house. They can't. They can only set fire to the ones that they know for sure.

Michele D- In response to Jeff, Sue and Julie :)
So those who would normally protect the public are used to control the public at the beck and call of the government? Interesting. I ask you, what about McCarthy? Salem witch trials? The Holocaust? The Patriot Act? Do any of these things resemble the type of control that could lead to a society where people are not allowed to think for themselves, where the government "takes action" to keep order, where the government is privy to personal information without the knowledge of the public? Julie stated that it is impossible for the government to know who has a banned book or not; is it that far out of the realm of reality? And yes, I agree that there will always be people to fight for the cause, but aren't those people historically known as rebels? Who would decide in that case who was right and who was wrong? Just some thoughts.

Jeff Keys - In response to the response to my paragraph
The examples you give are a little different from the concept of a total restriction of information. McCarthy was one man who convinced a lot of people to see things his way, and many suffered for it. But at the end of the day, people had figured out how full of it he was, and life went on. The Salem witch trials were similar, but that was not so much a small group dominating the thinking of large group as it was how the society as a whole held beliefs that allowed for a fear of the allegedly supernatural to spiral out of control. This too was corrected because enough people figured out that something wasn't right with it. The Patriot Act does indeed allow the government access to information about us that they would previously have not been able to get as easily, but to be honest, can we really compare that to anything present in Fahrenheit 451? You could argue that giving the government more control over security at the expense of privacy leads to a slippery slope wherein it eventually is able to dominate many or all aspects of our lives, but even this bleak prospect is a far cry from the total banning of non-government sanctioned information. The Holocaust, however, is one example that I believe has many parallels to what we are discussing. One man (or party) was able to come to power legally, then proceed to completely dominate a nation. I don't know it for sure, but I would imagine Hitler also made possession of certain literature illegal, since that makes it easier to spread propaganda. But look where that got him. Most of the world rose up against him, and his name is now associated with pure evil and the epitome of vileness. Nothing he tried to accomplish happened with any permanency, because there were more than enough people around who knew he had to be stopped.
"Who would decide in that case who was right and who was wrong?"
The winners. :P

Michele D Further response to Jeff
I enjoyed your analysis and explanation very much. I might ask you though, how long did it take the US government to respond to the allegations that were being funneled out of Germany/Poland/etc.about the concentration camps and all of the deaths and exterminations? What event spurred the US to enter the war and entertain that the "rumors" were true and not exaggerated?

Nicole Britt
The book never really came out to say how the government gained control over soceity except it has taken control of what they do. Are you sure? Both the Chief and Faber discuss it. Though this book is in the future where people become lazy and robots take place, it is against the law to read or own a book that is not approved by the government. These people still lived in a normal world because you had neighborhoods, make your beds, eat, etc just like you would today, except your penalty to pay if you were caught with books was having everything you owned including your house burned by firemen. Odd that they start fires, not put them out! This book came across as if the government we're brain washing people and shutting them out from the real world. I can relate to this scenerio in a way because I am in the Army. During bootcamp you can not do anything unless your drill seageant says so. You are punished by doing some type of work out until he feels the need to stop. You can't watch any tv, listen to the radio or read any type of literature. The only thing you can do is write/read letters. If there is anything in the envelope besides paper, they check it.
I would have to say that this government scenerio is plausible because the society is run by a government kind of like today's. They try and hide the real eveidence and want you to be stupid when it comes to the truth. Anyone who tries to stand up for their beliefs and go against the government is wiped out and the government does not think twice about taking out its own people. To them you are suppose to be loyal and do as they say. The only way around this tactic is to go into hiding in Canada or another foreign country. Very interesting. Nice way to incorporate your own experiences. I waited for this all semester! Nice.

Marcus Brendle
The government in the society in Fahrenheit 451 controlled its people by cutting them off from everything that they didn't want them to know about. For example they didn't want them to read books unless they were approved by the government therefore cutting them off from knowing anything about the history of their country or what things that people did in other countries and also from religion. Being a firefighter myself I do not actually see this ever happening, but the consequence for having unapproved books was that they would burn down your home along with everything you owned and they would put you in jail. I think that they were just trying to "brainwash" their people into what they wanted them to believe was the ideal way of life, kind of like the way Hitler did in Germany and Stalin in the Soviet Union

In my opinion I say that the scenario is and is not plausible. I think it is plausible because of the way that the government controls what the people do and they have no say so because after all communism and dictatorships are still forms of government used in some countries still today. However I think that the scenario is implausible because I don't really see the government ever burning down people's homes because of the books that they have, because there is really no absolute way of knowing if they really do have the books unless you see them with them, you can't just rely on word of mouth from someone else saying that they have them. That is why I do not ever see this happening. They search for the books. The tips usually state where they have seen them and to be honest, I do not think that the FM cared. They would burn down the house on suspicion. What do you think? Also, think about what the Patriot Act has allowed. People who are US citizens but have family in other countries are being taken for questioning - their rights stripped - in the name of justice???

Marcia Hardin
The government in this society gained control of the people by censoring all books, media and any other forms of free thinking. They fed the people information and squashed any type of behavior that led to people thinking outside the box. The government also used fear tactics to keep the people in line. It was a crime to even own books. The government did not want people to question their lives or the decisions made by the government. Technology had overtaken this society and the government used this to their advantage. Wars lasted only a matter of minutes. The human side of it was never seen. Bombs were dropped onto faceless cities. Excellent point! It is strange how the humans became less "human."
There was no warmth or comfort in this society. Everything, even the relationships were cold and sterile. The government fostered this type of behavior. The dead were cremated almost instantly. People were not mourned. When Clarisse was missing, and later Montag found out she had been killed in a car accident, no one seemed to care. Montag mentioned this to his wife and was appalled that she had no real reaction to it.
The people in this society did not react or have any real emotions. This was an advantage to the government. Montag’s relationship with his wife may have been normal in this society, as well as the relationship Millie had with her friends and neighbors. The government relished in this type of behavior. People could be controlled by technology. They were “entertained” by the interactive television.
Bradbury makes his point that this scenario is very plausible. He places the society in this 24th century, which is far enough in the future that the way technology is progressing this scenario could work. Technology in our life time has advanced to almost every person having cell phones with cameras, GPS systems in our cars and cell phones, Webcams and interactive television and games with the invention of the Wii game. Even something as simple as reality TV could be seen as an early sign of cameras in everyone’s houses. There are many conspiracy theorists who question our government’s right to bug our phones and censor the information coming out of Washington. Technology in war and conflict has advanced just in the last 50 years. Things like land to air missiles and bioterrorism as well as the atomic bomb has made our wars less human. Without free thinkers this scenario is very
plausible. I concur!

Joe Doster
In Fahrenheit 451’s society all books along with other forms of media were censored to deny the public knowledge. Through this censorship the government felt that they were in control of the way the public thought. The public was forced to learn of events in the manner the government wanted them to see and learn it. This reminds me so much of Saddam Hussein who had totaled control over what his people saw on the news through his television station Iraqi TV. Citizens were ultimately afraid of the government and what they would do to someone who was caught with a book in their home. Firemen would show up to your house to burn it down. Through time education became more and more remote for the government felt as though you learn only what they wanted you to learn. This government was determined to eliminate any type of free willed thinking at any cost to have absolute control. The government made a push for technological advancements and the only knowledge the government wanted you to have was in how to operate the machines that ran their society. People were mindless and emotionless as though they were machines themselves incapable of love, compassion, and forgotten what happiness was. As this was going on it made me think of a recent film I saw called the Invasion.
This was a film where your body was taken over by aliens and once that took place you turned into somewhat of an emotionless zombie. Eventually the government had gotten the society to the point where their brain’s had gone on auto pilot and was just there. They had no thoughts no nothing but the media that the government had put in front of them through television. The death of Montag that never took place was conjured up and was showed to the population. Why do you think they had to have this substitute death? What does that say about the "humanity" in this story?
As the advancement of technology continues to grow at such a rapid pace and the way in which the world is headed through violence and wars, I do believe that this is a very plausible situation that we could face. Fahrenheit 451 takes place in about three hundred years can you imagine what technology lies ahead. As I stated earlier this type of behavior has already happened with Saddam in Iraq. You can find this type of behavior going as far back as the Egyptians, the Roman Empire, and just as recently as Hitler and Nazi Germany. Some have come close to accomplishing this unthinkable scenario. In the end however I am a firm believer that mankind would come through for each other as we have always done. As long as we have those who will fight and be free willed thinkers we can overcome, but without those who are willing the scenario may not be that far away.

Melanie Hefner
The government gained control over this society by slowly removing all forms of thinking for your self. According to the character Beatty, there had been a time when people read books, but then those books were condensed down into smaller and smaller versions until there was nothing left. The amount of time spent in school became shorter and shorter as well, for this government didn’t see the need for people to become educated beyond what they wanted them to know. The only knowledge needed was how to operate the machines that did all their thinking for them. People’s brains were turned off and then immersed in a sort of senseless media, like the constant television world that Millie and her friends lived in. Even in the news, society only got to see what the government wanted them to see, for example Montags faked death.
Do I think this scenario is plausible? Absolutely. Maybe not in the way that there would be a giant mechanical hound waiting to bite your hand off if you opened a book, but book banning is very real and goes on all the time. One of my all time favorite books “To Kill a Mocking Bird” is number three on the top ten books banned from schools list. And I truly believe the media skews our perceptions of what is really going on with this war. There are definitely things our government doesn’t allow us to see. We may think we live in a free society without limits but if someone tried to test the limits beyond what the government allows, you would see how quickly you’d be brought under control. I’m not saying this is a bad thing-we need control. But put the wrong person in power and Fahrenheit 451 could be more real than you think. Banned Books Today

Casey Winders
In Fahrenheit 451, it is evident that the government doesn’t line up with education. In the story it is not permitted to read books. Through this the people aren’t able to actually determine their real point of view on things. This is the government forcing them what to believe and think without having to actually say it. There is always a consequence if you break the law and in this case was very strange. The result if you did read a book, unless permitted, was that the firemen who actually are supposed to put out fires would come and burn everything you own. It is funny how they use this scare tactic to force a belief on someone. Now, there is always going to be those people who will go along with whatever. Like when someone gives a fact that is outrageous and you ask them who the source was, and they respond, “my mom or dad told me this and it has to be true”. The government makes it seem as if it is the only way just like the example of “my dad told me.” In the case of the scenario being plausible, well what is plausible? According to dictionary.com it means, (having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable). From it being the only way they know, it must be true to them. The other definition it gives from dictionary.com is, (well-spoken and apparently, but often deceptively, worthy of confidence or trust). This is the way the government relays the message it is well spoken but deceptive. So I would say it is plausible, because it seem to be the true way but in the second definition we know that it is often deceptive. So, yes, plausible, regardless of definition, because people would accept the deception of the government? It is strange what people will accept if justified in the name of liberty or freedom even if it restricts freedom.

Russell Scott
1) The government gained control over there society by taking away the citizen’s desire for knowledge and by giving the people the impression that they don’t need to know anything because the government will take care of there people. Interesting and yes, I agree. The government uses the advances that they made in technology to cloud the citizens judgment. An example is the mechanical hound. The make it seems as if there is no need for police since they have this hound that supposedly never fails. The government even takes it to another level by forcing the citizens to watch the mechanical hound search or chase the criminals. In other words they brain wash the citizens by giving them the impression that the government is perfect. Another example on why the government gained control is the way they made it seems that there society does not need books. I think that is the main reason why they were able to trick the citizens very easily. The reason why the government is can easily trick someone that does not have knowledge, but it is harder to manipulate someone with knowledge.
2) Yes I do think that this scenario is plausible. The reason why is because this actually has happen before. It may not be to the same magnitude as it was in this story, but it is very similar. An example is the holocaust. The government (through Adolf Hitler) manipulated thousands of people by saying that if you weren’t German and did not have blue eyes and blonde hair, then he or she was forced to live somewhere else or sent to concentration camps (death camps). Another example is slavery. If the government was able to trick people for over 500 years and convince society that even though the constitution says that every man is made equally, but still allow slavery to take place, then yes I do believe that this is plausible. nice.

Cashebia Dupree
The government gained control over the people by banning all books. It was a crime to have books in your house or even to be seen with a book. To regulate their policies of book banning the “firemen” were in control. By banning knowledge of any kind, there isn’t going to be any one smart enough to think for themselves. The government was the parent telling its people what they can and can not do. I sort of feel like the people allowed themselves to go through this. No one spoke out against the government or the firemen. Everyone just sort of went with the flow. They were too interested in their “TV families” to care that day by day they were becoming an ignorant, cruel society. This scenario could be plausible. We tend to be so wrapped up in our selves that we don’t pay attention to what is going on around us in our society, for example our children's education. If they are our future doctors and lawyers, why wouldn't you question the governments plan for education. Society is so worried about celebrities, fashion, and weight gain, that we don't even ask the questions. So I definitely believe this scenario could happen.

Andy Stamey
The government gained control over their society by outlawing any type of book. The technological advances made life for these people too easy and they became lazy not even capable of making decisions and not even caring. By burning the books and the houses that the books were found in allowed the government to scare their people into not wanting books in their possession which meant that no one was able to gain knowledge of anything but of only things that the government wanted them to. I believe the government we know today can control their people but I don’t think that it would be as specific as not allowing its people to read books. With the cost of living going up by the day it seems people are having to spend basically all of their time working just to survive which almost stops them from being able to sit down and relax (such as reading books and doing things of that nature).

CIERA LOWRIMORE
In Fahrenheit 451 the government gained control over the society through many aspects, such as fear, propaganda, the growing technology, created ignorance, and censorship most of all. The people of the town were made to fear the firemen, the men who they ironically should thought as the good guys. After all, Clarisse put is best when she stated that there were a day when firemen put out fires and not start them. They used the victims such as the old lady in the house, as examples to live by, to make it known they will burn the books found and nothing not even people will stop them. The growing technology made it more easy for them to brain wash the people into believing in this new way of life, that books were bad. The television also distracted the people from reality in my opinion, because they were to busy being entertained with their new found interactive families. The lack of reading books and increased technology in my opinion made the people more ignorant and easier to mold into their own society of beliefs. Then the sleeping pills showed me that obviously the people were aware of something, they had to be in my opinion, why else would someone take pills that made them sleep all the time, people that do that generally are trying to run from something. The people were like robots, they lost all sense of emotion, or ability to show emotion. Even Montag mentioned how him and Millie were distant and with the issue of the books and her fear of the books he possessed became even more distant.

I believe that the scenario in this book is very plausible. Our history only proves that. How else would Hilter have got tons of people to kills tons of other people, he had to gain control over society, using what ever he had to use. Also, faith such as Muslim faith I think falls into this category, because they are made to believe that their god is the only god and they must believe it or be punished. You had me until the generalization about Muslims. Generalizations about Jews is how Hitler furthered his war, ya know ; )

PATRICK JONES
I think the government used fear to gain the control over the people of this community which was because the government decided to end the use and ownership of books to keep the community under their control. If the firemen that are in my area began burning homes with books inside, sometimes with people still in there, then I think I would cooperate. The firemen become these enforcers of the ridiculous idea of outlawing books. Guy himself is nervous when he sneaks the Bible home at first because he sees first hand what goes on as a book burning fireman. I think that in itself is great evidence of how the rest of the the community feels about books and the trouble that is attached to them because this is his profession and eventually even he sees the bad in it.

Most definitely this could happen in today's world. After Hitler's reign of terror in Europe I think people would be a little more wary after the fact but if a country was not doing too well and a war was possibly going on or about to and everything is just going wrong, all it would take is one well-spoken individual to turn on his/her charm and start making promises that reflect what the whole country would want and they could be able to take such a dictating type of role and have people actually cooperate. It is a very frightening idea, to have a leader hold so much power that our checks and balances could not contain his/her plans for the country. I doubt it would happen, but still scary.

Yessenia Norena
How did the government of this society gain control over the people? Explain using evidence from the story.
The government gained control over the people in a very simple ways. They controlled everything that the people did and saw. They censored everything. At first I bet people questioned it but after something has been done for so long people do not even ask question anymore. They also played on the ignorance of the people. People think that the government would know what is best for them but sometimes they don’t. People think the government would always do what is best for their people but they do not always do. After so many generations believing the same thing people just do not even know why something is even banned at all. Like when Clarisse McClellan asked him why do they even burn books for. He just said because that is how they always have done it. He did not ask any question he just did what he was told and that is burning books.
Do you think this scenario is plausible?
This scene is so plausible because some people do not like to question anything. They just think they have our best interest in mind and would not do anything to hurt us. The government sometimes has our best interest in mind but not all the time. Also when the government wants to control everything they can. They can very easily control what we watch, hear and read. When we are just seeing or hearing one side of something we can be very easily persuaded one way. This can happen so easy that it is very scary. One day we might lose our free thought and that would not be right. To much censorship is very bad. When the government starts telling you what you can or can not say that is bad because they are trying to control what people are hearing. I think people need to not believe everything they see or hear. Also people need to start asking question to things they do not understand. People sometimes fear asking question but that is something you should not fear.

Matthew Brooks
The government gained control over the people by taking small bites of the elephant until the elephant was gone. What I mean by this is they reacted incrementally to popular culture in a way which served the interests of politicians; a dumbed down, distracted population.
Both Faber and the Chief told Montag that the government didn’t outright ban books in the beginning. They let the people do it themselves. As technology increased, the desire for books decreased. On top of this, the numerous special interest groups complained enough that writers could not write freely without offending someone. As the Chief put it, “[t]he bigger your market…the less you handle controversy (57).” The government reacted to the people and slowly began to eliminate books from society. Books were replaced by electronic media, not just in the general public but also in schools. Children were not encouraged to read and think; only to learn the facts they were given. The government furthered their cause by using fear. Authors and intellectuals were demonized and the firemen were brought in to squash radicals and their messages of free thought. The final nail in the coffin was a distracted public. The government provided entertainment to the masses. They encouraged people to have fun and seek pleasure. If your primary concern is having fun, you aren’t debating politics or questioning authority. This is not a new concept. Emperors of ancient Rome held festivals and sponsored public games (such as chariot racing and gladiator fights) to keep the masses entertained. A happy population usually does not revolt. The government in Fahrenheit 451, aided by the people, eradicated the thirst for knowledge and then diverted everyone’s attention to hedonistic endeavors.
I think the scenario Bradbury presents in Fahrenheit 451 is very possible and I’m not sure we aren’t already sliding down this slippery slope. First of all, electronic media is dominating our collective lives. News outlets and the internet provide a constant and immediate barrage of up-to-the minute coverage.Secondly, the education of children is quickly being reduced to a series of multiple choice tests. Teachers teach for the test. The ability to reason and search for understanding is no longer part of school. High test scores are the new Holy Grail. For example, my son is in the fourth grade. They have End of Grade Tests during the second half of May. However, they ended the year’s curriculum on April first and will spend the next 6 or 7 weeks prepping for the test. Personally, I don’t consider this learning and feel my son is being deprived a quality education in exchange for “No Child [getting] Left Behind”. If we aren’t careful as a society during the next few generations, the desire for knowledge will be extinguished and it will be a small step for those in favor of censorship. I agree!

On a side note (Professor Domenech, this is not a criticism, just an observation)-
I find it a bit ironic that a book which emphasizes the importance of using all of the senses while reading (how the pages feel, how the book smells, etc.) is being taught in an online class. With the exception of Fahrenheit 451, I don’t think it was necessary to actually pick up a book the entire semester. I love irony! Makes it all the more plausible when you think about it then, huh?

Amanda Marshall
In the book Fahrenheit 451, the government seized almost total control of their society’s mind. Their personalities were stripped, and they were forced to see the world through the eyes of close-minded government officials. If anyone so much as thought about reading certain books, or using certain types of media then their houses could, and most likely would, be burnt to the ground. All evidence of free will was shattered, and the emotions of the society faded. Since the government had taken claim over the freedom of knowledge and human interaction, there was no reason to follow Newton’s law. In our world, when we discover the fact that someone we know has been killed, there is usually an emotional reaction to the news. When Montag reveals to his wife that Clarisse has died, there was no reaction. Her emotions had been drained by the constant depression throughout the society. When the authorities showed up at a person’s house to burn it down, there was no remorse from their friends and neighbors. The actions of the government became a way of life, and eventually the resistance against this change will end. I think that at the time in this story, there was no resistance against the government’s control anymore. Their motive was either: follow the law and live, or choose to be your own person and die. When we are given such a harsh ultimatum, not many people will greet death with open arms.
The technological advancement of this story is becoming a reality in our own world. The most common place that this type of control is taking place is over seas. Their government is controlled by close-minded individuals who do not allow people to think for themselves. Their women have to follow dress codes, and they are not even allowed to be outside most of the time unless they are accompanied by their husband. They are brought up being taught that any other world power must be taken down, and if anyone second guesses their authority, they are killed immediately.
My brother called me last year when he was over in Iraq, and I will never forget hearing the terror in his voice. He said that while they were over in Afghanistan, they were helping to build some sort of building for the Iraqi’s. Well, one of the Iraqi gentlemen had gotten some sort of injur and was laying on the ground bleeding very badly. When my brother and two other soldiers went to help him, they did not know that their offer was going to be denied so harshly. They picked him up and started to walk him back to their little camp to get him cleaned up, well the next sound they hear is a gun being fired, and the head of the gentleman they were helping had been shot. My brother said that after talking with his Sergeant, he then realized that the consequence of any communication with an American is immediate death.
I hate to believe that our world may become a victim of control. I know that to a certain degree we have always been under control, but not to the extent that we will not be able to function without first having to ask an authority figure. I believe that our government is trying to set the basis for this type of containment over the American people. They say that we have a say-so in everything that goes on in this country, but really.. we all know that is not true. When we were begging Bush to help the victim’s after Katrina, he refused to go in until it was basically too late. We are still begging Bush to this day to remove the troops from Iraq, but he does not listen to the wants and needs of the American people.
Nice job.

Katie Martin
The government in my opinion gained control over the population by taking away their rights to learn. They did this through intellectual censorship. They did not want them to be educated. Any book or source that could help educate someone where not allowed unless approved by the government, if they got caught then they could burn their house down. Since these people could not get any education or just a sense of direction in life the government could make them do things that were crazy. The people had no thoughts or ideas of their own, they just did what the government told them to. These people really could not do much of anything on their own they are used to being told what to do, which is sad.
I think that this scenario is believable because the government is still the same in some ways. The government has alot of control in today's society. You can voice your opinion but that does not mean it will always be heard. If people go against the government they get in big trouble unless they get away somehow. The government sometimes in today's world acts very stupid. Although the government is very powerful there are alot of people who will always stand up to them and what they believe in.

Jaima Russell
I believe that the government gained control over the people in this town by withholding knowledge from the people and also by scaring them into submission. I think that the main thing that made the books so "bad" in the government's eyes is the fact that they could not control what the books said, unlike television and such. The firefighters, who we in our society view as the good guys, burnt houses and even people for reading books. There was nothing the few people in the town who wanted a change could do about it. I think the main problem that started this whole thing is a lack of individuality of the people of the town. If we are all the same then it becomes uninteresting and mundane, just as the people of that town pretended to be happy but the suicide rate was really high. If the people of this town would never have put the books down to begin with, and formulated their own ideas through reading and analyzing, instead of just listening to what they heard on television, then this scenario probably never would have happened.
I definitely believe that this scenario is plausible in our society today. I would like to think not, to think that we have learned from our past mistakes (which books help with), but I know that there will always be ignorance in the world and we are always influenced by our "superiors". When the Holocaust was taking place, no one thought that our society could succumb to something like that then either. I think it is partly that ignorance that allowed these horrible actions to take place. If we could get the idea into our heads that it is a good step to wipe out an entire race, what makes us think we won't throw out some books? The only way to prevent this or anything like this from happening is to be individuals, free-thinkers, etc. Do not accept what someone tells you about something, figure it out for yourself.

Amanda Stowe
In the book the goverment gained control over society by basically deny them the right to education. They took the knowlege and then led the people by fear. They were trying to make everone be under a very tight control. The books that might give someone any knowledge is burnt . If you are caught with a book your house could be set on fire and the mechanical dog could kill you. The firemen int the book led the people by a state of fear. It is hard for anyone to belive that firemen used to be heros who put out fires instead of making them.
I do not think that this is plausible in todays society. I think that the goverment will get alot more controlling and the rights to privacy will be locked down and maybe we will not recieve the rights that we deserve but I do not think there will ever be a time that it will be to the extreme like it was in the book. I do however think the ablity of the goverment to run people in a state of fear for their own benefit is very likely and I think that is what is going on right now. I think that is why we are still in war and why the economy is so bad. I think it is a tool to gain contorl of the poeple.

Natalie McGinnis
In the book Fahrenheit 451 the goverment gains control of the people through extreme cencorship. They push the envelope by brainwashing the people to believe that literature is a bunch of hog wash and of no use to society. They even go so far as to ban books and set fire to any books found. Without any outside influence to help people to think on their own they are vulerable to whatever they are told. They rely on the goverment to tell them what is real and good and don't look at things for themselves. They don't ask questions or think outside of "status quo". The goverment has the people bombarded with wall size tvs and are continually filling them with their agenda. I do beleive this is plausable in today's society. Just look at how people are sucked into all these reality shows and how they build their lives around the tv. The goverment can control what the tv reports and thereby control how much fo the truth people really know. If they want to push an agenda then they use sthe media to get the message out but let it go against what the goverment wants and they will shut it down. I can't help but wonder with all the technology we have why someone hasn't found an alternative to the rising gas prices. Yet you hear about stories where someone did and they were shut up by high powered officials. Just rumor? Who knows! Another recent example of how a groiup of people stop thinking for themselves and let someone else dictate them would be the religous compounds we have seen come under fire. The most recent one was a group that have been accused of child abuse and marrying underage girls to older men. The women are convinced this is the will of God by the leaders and they don't think for themselves or for their children 's safety. How can a woman think it is on to let her 12 year old daughter marry a 60 year old man? The same reason that the people in the book Fahrenheit 451 would allow the goverment to censor books and everything else that might cause them to start asking questions and demanding answers.

Danielle Hawley
I feel the government brained washed the people into making them all think the same way. The government had made the community a whole instead of individuals. The expelled the right for the people to think on their own, making them fit into a mold of their ideal person. Those who dared to go against the mold were tracked down and their books burned. It amazed me how the fire cheif knew so much, buy yet banned reading. Where was he getting his material from? With a community being able to think as a whole, the politicians did not have to worry about any uprising agains a decison they made. The government had the people right where they wanted them. We have a mind set now, that when someone dies we feel remorse. When Montag's wife told him that their formal neighbor Clarisse had passed away their was no remorse from her. The government has instilled in their mind that when someone died it was just and everyday event.
The governenment does not go the extent of Fahrenheit 451,__ but I think they would if we let them. It is a plausible scenario because the government puts rights on us to let us not think and act as some would prefer. The government has put laws on the separation of church of state, and now is trying to change the pledge to where it is not "one nation under God." The government still has a hold on us whether is by our money or by our rights. We must pay the government money but we do not see where it goes. This is a way that they government has us brainwashed. We put ourselves in line to do whatever they say when they say it. If the draft was re-instated we would be required to sign-up and go, even against our will. One day the government may control us from having freedom of thought. Maybe even in this election.